Hinshaw labor and employment attorneys from the Midwest, East Coast, and West Coast will address developments in the ever-changing landscape of employment law claims, including significant court decisions, changes to state and federal law affecting their region as well as other important trends, legislation and decisions of which every employer should be aware.

Join us for Hinshaw's Labor & Employment Regional Law Update. Our practical and engaging virtual program will examine the most pressing issues affecting employers today.We will host the following regional sessions on Tuesday, July 26:West Coast:                    12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. PDTEast Coast/South:          1:00 p.m. - 2:00 EDT  |  12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. CDT

Beginning July 1, 2018, it will be illegal for San Francisco employers to ask job applicants to disclose their salary history. A number of similar laws have been enacted in cities and states across the country to address the gender and minority pay gaps.

The Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act ("WARN") requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 calendar days' notice of plant closings or mass layoffs to give transition time to workers and their families to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, seek alternative jobs, and/or enter skill training or retraining to successfully compete in the job market. 29 U.S.C. §2201 et seq. Employers who fail to comply with WARN are liable to affected employees for up to 60 days of pay and benefits. 29 U.S.C. §2104(a)(1).

In this recent arbitration decision out of the Ninth Circuit, the employee brought an action against her employer, alleging violations of California’s overtime laws and sought to assert claims on behalf of a class. After several years of litigation, the employee moved to certify a class. The District Court granted the motion in part, narrowing the class which the employee represented. In the same order, the court denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration, which was after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011). The District Court found that the employer had waived its right to arbitration by litigating the action for years without raising the binding arbitration clause contained in the employee's employment agreement.

Employee Not Entitled to Reinstatement to an Equivalent Position Under the FMLA When the Employee Exceeds His FMLA leave

Court Finds Companies to Be Single Employer for Purposes of Arbitrability Under Union Contract

Collective Action Cannot Proceed Where Representative Employee's Claim Rendered MootNurses at a Philadelphia hospital claimed they were deprived of compensation when their employer automatically deducted 30 minutes of time worked per shift for meal breaks, even when the employees performed compensable work during those breaks. The representative employee, on behalf of all those similarly situated, claimed that the employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by engaging in such conduct. The employer served upon the employee an offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, which was sufficient to fully satisfy her individual claim. The employee did not respond, and the offer was effectively deemed withdrawn. The employer moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, finding that although no other potential plaintiff opted into the suit, and although the employer's offer fully satisfied the employee's claim, the collective action was not moot. This was because, according to the court, calculated attempts by employer-defendants to "pick off" representative employees with strategic Rule 68 offers prior to certification circumvented and frustrated the aims of the collective action process in the first place. The court held that the employee should be allowed to seek conditional certification of the action. The employer sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court agreed with the employer, finding that mootness principles controlled. Here, the employee's individual claim was rendered moot by virtue of the Rule 68 offer that provided complete satisfaction for her claim and left her with no personal interest or stake in the collective action. The Court also rejected the employee's attempt to rely upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 cases because Rule 23 class actions are fundamentally different from FLSA class actions and compel different results. Employers faced with class and collective actions should consult with counsel to determine whether the methods for resolution will bring about the intended result, and to ensure that such endeavors will pass muster under the applicable state and federal rules.

Oral Agreement to Pay Commissions Not Barred by Statute of Frauds

Seventh Circuit Upholds Indiana's Right to Work Act

Employer's Honest Belief of Misuse and Untruthfulness Supports Termination of Employee After FMLA Leave